The BBC took two parts of President Trump's January 6 speech that were delivered 55 minutes apart, edited them into a single 12-second clip, and aired the result in a documentary called "Trump: A Second Chance" on October 28, 2024 — one week before the presidential election.

A federal judge just ruled that looks a lot like defamation.

Judge Jeffrey Kuntz of the Southern District of Florida denied the BBC's motion to dismiss Trump's lawsuit, finding the case has enough merit to proceed to trial. As Hot Air reported, the ruling was built on a fact the BBC itself already admitted: the documentary's editing created "a misleading and mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action."

The BBC's own chairman called it an "editorial error" done "unintentionally." Judge Kuntz wasn't buying the accident theory.

Here's what the BBC did. Trump's actual speech included the line, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women." Nearly a minute after a separate passage, he said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." The BBC cut both of those parts out. What viewers got instead was a spliced clip: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

Two statements. Fifty-five minutes apart. Stitched together to sound like a call to violence.

Judge Kuntz wrote that "this was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech." He noted the BBC had "the entire speech available to them for nearly three years by the time of the Documentary." Three years to review 70-plus minutes of footage, and they somehow produced a 12-second clip that reversed the meaning of the original.

The judge also flagged the timing. The BBC "chose to release the video in a documentary only a week before the 2024 Presidential Election, at the time it would have the most impact." They also "emailed U.S. and Florida based commenters with instructions on how to view the documentary" — targeting the very jurisdiction where the case would be filed.

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley called the ruling "comprehensive and informative" and said "the court is right to set this case for trial."

The BBC's defense rests on the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, which requires public figures to prove actual malice — knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard for the truth. Judge Kuntz found enough evidence of both to let the case move forward. An organization that had three years to review the full speech, edited out every peaceful reference, spliced two segments nearly an hour apart into one clip, and aired it days before an election has a difficult time arguing they were merely careless.

Trump has already collected approximately $15 million from ABC News and another $15 million from CBS News in defamation settlements — roughly $30 million combined. CNN's case was dismissed after a court found their statements were opinion rather than factual claims. The BBC case is different. Editing a speech to reverse its meaning isn't opinion. It's fabrication.

Turley and others have speculated the BBC will settle rather than risk a trial that could invite the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan's actual malice standard entirely. That would reshape defamation law for every outlet in the country.

The BBC had the full speech for three years. They aired the edit seven days before the election. The judge set it for trial.